An opaque justice. By Dushyant Dave
Chief Justice of India
is exercising his power to constitute benches, allocate cases in a manner that
raises questions about independence of judiciary.
The Constitution is
the suprema lex for this country. In Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala, it
was held that supremacy of the Constitution is among the basic features of the
Constitution of India and is protected by the authority of an independent judicial
body to act as interpreter of a scheme of distribution of powers. In a recent order in
the matter of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India
and Others, a five-judge bench held that, “… the Chief Justice is the master of
the roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the
Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.” Even though empowered
with the order of November 10, 2017, does the Chief Justice of India possess
absolute and arbitrary powers to “constitute the Benches of the Court and
allocate cases to the Benches so constituted”? Of course not. He is as much
bound by the Rule of Law as anybody else. If there is one principle firmly
rooted in our constitutionalism, it is: “Be you ever so high, law is above
you.”
Yet, a little insight
into the functioning of the Supreme Court today will reveal that the Chief
Justice has been exercising his powers in an opaque manner. Several instances
reflect that the Constitution Benches are constituted by including certain
judges and excluding certain others. It is not my endeavour to criticise or
attack any individual judge. But the fact remains that senior judges and even
judges known for their proficiency in certain branches of law are excluded from
such benches.
The five-judge bench
which passed the order of November 10, 2017, was constituted by the Chief
Justice ignoring senior-most judges. Even assuming that the Chief Justice felt
that the bench of Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer could not
have passed a judicial order referring the writ petition to a bench comprising
the first five judges in the order of seniority, the Chief Justice should have
constituted a bench of the same judges. The order passed by the bench presided
over by the Chief Justice speaks about “judicial discipline and decorum” and
“convention”. Those very principles would oblige the Chief Justice not to pick
and choose in constituting benches.
The case of Justice
K.S Puttaswamy (Retd.) and another v Union of India, or the Aadhaar matter,
is more curious. This writ petition was heard by various benches of which
Justice Chelameswar and Justice S.A. Bobde were members right from 2013. On
August 11, 2015, a bench comprising Justice Chelameswar, Justice Bobde and
Justice C. Nagappan directed that the matter be referred to a larger bench.
Chief Justice J.S. Khehar correctly reconstituted the bench on July 18, 2017 which
comprised himself, and Justices Chelameswar, Bobde, Chandrachud and Nazeer,
which then referred the question of whether privacy is a fundamental right to a
larger bench of nine judges. This larger bench comprised, among others, Justice
Chelameswar, Justice Bobde and Justice Nazeer. The privacy matter was decided
on August 24, 2017 and at least one of the judges, Justice Nariman, at the end
of his judgment, directed that the matters be sent back for adjudication to the
original bench of three judges in light of the judgment. It is a matter of
record that the Aadhaar matter was not being fixed for hearing which led to the
repeated mention by Shyam Divan, senior advocate, on behalf of the petitioners
before Chief Justice Misra, who ultimately constituted a five-judge bench as
suggested by the Attorney General but excluded most of those judges.
Benches are
constituted by the Chief Justice considering the previous orders and it is rare
to exclude from them the judges who had heard the matter earlier and are still
available. The recent trend shows
that the Chief Justice appears to be allocating cases on a selective basis.
Again, it is not my endeavour to criticise the outcomes or judgments in such
cases. But the manner of allocation raises serious issues about the
independence of the judiciary. For example, a recent matter challenging the
appointment of Additional Director of CBI was placed before the bench of
Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Navin Sinha, but the same was released by an
order to the following effect, “List the matter on Friday i.e. 17th November,
2017 before a Bench without Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha.”
The matter was
later listed before a bench presided over by Justice R.K. Agrawal on November
17, although on that very day Justice Gogoi was sitting not with Justice Sinha
but with Justice Rohinton F. Nariman and Justice S.K. Kaul. The matter ought to
have been placed before that bench. Unfor-tunately, this
has been going on in the Supreme Court for some time. Chief Justice Khehar
allocated the Birla Sahara matter to a bench presided over by Justice Arun
Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy overlooking 10 senior benches. Chief Justice
Khehar, after converting a letter by the widow of Kalikho Pul into a petition,
allocated the same to the bench of Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit,
who were sitting in Court No. 13, overlooking Court Numbers 2 to 12 for no
apparent reason.
An independent and
strong judiciary is the basic feature of the Constitution. We are faced with an
extraordinary situation where the judiciary is being marginalised from within,
not from outside. It is important for this institution to ensure that an
impression is not given to the public that the constitution of benches and
allocation of matters is being done in a manner more palatable to the
executive. Government is the single biggest litigant before the Supreme Court.
Citizens are entitled to expect the free and fair administration of justice. The Chief Justice will
be well advised to correct this course. If he doesn’t, the other judges must
step in. The independence of judiciary is the collective responsibility of all
the judges. Let us hope and trust that they will not fail the institution.
see also
As SC Hears Bribery Petition on Monday, Further Improprieties Come to the Fore
All 3 judges on the bench hearing the matter ought to have recused themselves
After Yesterday’s Action Packed Hearing, CJI Constitutes Bench To Hear Kamini Jaiswal’s Petition
Exclusive: Ex-Arunachal CM’s Explosive Suicide Note that BJP is Refusing to Probe
A Sad Moment in India’s Judicial History - Shanti Bhushan
If the Supreme Court is to be saved, a bench comprising all its judges must take stock of the situation and consider the legal position dispassionately and wisely
No One Should Be a Judge in his Own Cause
The law of killing - a brief history of Indian fascism
Ajmer blast case: Two including a former RSS worker get life imprisonment
